Salon, Obama, Bush and our right to privacy.

Here is something we at Midknight Review never do -- recommend an article out of a liberal publication. Today, Salon, published a very important article on the continuing invasion of privacy going on in our country at the hands of our government, since - and in part, because of - 9/11.

Salon begins by pointing to the fact that in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, as of August of this year, a ban exists on the use of Blackberries because those governments do not have the technologies needed to effectively monitor Blackberry communications. Research in Motion is the Canadian based company that operates Blackberry and it refuses to make its communication data available to the outside world. The issues surrounding Blackberry includes voice-over communications on the internet such as Skype, as well.

Like Saudi Arabia and United Arabs Emirates, the Obama Administration intends to increase its ability to monitor our every communication. You will want to read the Salon article here. Again, Salon is a liberal publication or so we say. Just what kind of "liberal," we really do not know. We intend to give this last question some attention in the very near future - in the meantime, read the article.

As you read, you will note the embedded angst against the Bush Administration. This blogger is a "friend" of GW but very disappointed with [especially] his big government spending policies. Unlike Glenn Beck, we do not see GW Bush as a Progressive. But he practiced some of the same spending policies as do Progressives. At any rate, the problem of privacy became an issue under the Bush Administration, but for good reason -- to protect the American people.

We believe that the Obama people have very different reasons for doing much of what they do. While Bush "invaded our privacy," Obama is in the midst of a mounting assault on our personal freedoms, especially as relates to free political speech. And therein is the difference between the two. Salon will disagree.

President Bush would never have come up with anything similar to the "fairness doctrine" or "net neutrality." He would not have collected information for the purpose of evaluating for the "truthfulness" of commentary. Bush never complained about free political speech, describing it as a pressure on a free society nor would he have pointed the finger at the Supreme Court over their free speech decision in Citizen United.

As you read the Salon article, understand that the call to protect our country from attack is not the primary motivation for the Marxist/Socialists in our midst. Understand that Obama and his many friends, hate the realization that his opposition is as effective as it is. He attributes the "opposition's" rhetorical successes to lies and half truths, and wants to limit such speech. Obama believes that we should not have the right to offer up speech that - in his opinion - is misleading and "untrue." We have documented all this several times in the past.

Before "we" begin an assault on personal privacy, we suggest that the powers that be begin by affirming our CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy. Following that little exercise, we should, then, develop strategies that do not offend Constitutional principles. There are rules that cannot and must not be ignored. If the Constitution must be suspended for our protection, the enemy has won.

Understand that no people have ever been injured by a caring and benevolent dictator. But, the rules that allow a benevolent dictator to assume power, allow for a despot to do the same. Our individual freedoms must not be sacrificed in the name of national security. Sorry.

Our suggestion to the Feds? Find a different way. Develop new technologies. Slow down the development of these technologies or encourage communication inventors to help solve the problems they have created. But do not use the occasion to take away our freedoms.